Jump to content

impeachment inquiry hearings thread

henrygandorf

By henrygandorf
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Zombie

Zombie 284

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I don’t see how the courts can allow executive members to ignore congressional subpoenas for an impeachment hearing. Presumably that sets up the ability for the president to never be impeached on criminal acts by ensuring that he only speaks to loyal people that will not talk.

for example if sondland has only spoken with Mulvaney, but Mulvaney refuses to testify, an impeachment investigation basically could stop right there.

i guess that one bright spot is that all of those refusing to talk can be arrested when the next Admin comes in. Besides risking jail time, you would think the lawyers in the group, like don McGahn, would be concerned about losing their law license.

I think the Democrats could ultimately compel them through the courts to appear, and they may pursue that on a parallel tract with the hearings, but I think the committee is happy to use their refusal to appear as strong justification for an obstruction impeachment charge which they can bring to a vote in a month or two instead of waiting for the legal process to work itself out. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 10.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

TexasEd
TexasEd

I voted for Trump/Against Hilary Clinton.   He should be impeached for: Extortion of a foreign government by withholding military assistance to an ally (and benefitting Russia) in exchange

Paul Wesley
Paul Wesley

I'm a couple pages back in this fast-moving thread, but I wanted to respond to this.   I'm pretty close to you in demographics, and I was also a child who echoed his parents' pro-Reagan stance, a

Tailgate
Tailgate

Unreal. Biden’s son can take home $1m a year from a Ukrainian company he knows nothing about...but our president acts like the CEO of a company with leverage in cutting deals and this shit happens?

Posted Images

Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

i guess that one bright spot is that all of those refusing to talk can be arrested when the next Admin comes in. Besides risking jail time, you would think the lawyers in the group, like don McGahn, would be concerned about losing their law license.

I will not be holding my breath. The big structural change we need? The one that is a talking point? That would be that white collar criminals have actual punishment for their crimes that isn't just monetary or country club prison.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29194

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, Zombie said:

I think the Democrats could ultimately compel them through the courts to appear, and they may pursue that on a parallel tract with the hearings, but I think the committee is happy to use their refusal to appear as strong justification for an obstruction impeachment charge which they can bring to a vote in a month or two instead of waiting for the legal process to work itself out. 

what good is an airtight case of obstruction if the senate already knows how they’re voting?  they essentially just get away with stonewalling. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GW Hayduke

GW Hayduke 1953

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

what good is an airtight case of obstruction if the senate already knows how they’re voting?  they essentially just get away with stonewalling. 

I think it depends on the political calculation whether the narrative "obstruction, they are defying subpoenas, what are they hiding, only the guilty refuse to testify" VS "whatever sound bites, new information they get from forcing testimony (also considering when a court would force them)" weighed in terms of which would increase impact and maximize the chance Dems win 2020 (both senate and white house). Politik. The 2020 election is the prize and only thing that matters

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45695

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

I think it depends on the political calculation whether the narrative "obstruction, they are defying subpoenas, what are they hiding, only the guilty refuse to testify" VS "whatever sound bites, new information they get from forcing testimony (also considering when a court would force them)" weighed in terms of which would increase impact and maximize the chance Dems win 2020 (both senate and white house). Politik. The 2020 election is the prize and only thing that matters

This may be true, but that just shows how completely fucked this system is.  The government is fundamentally broken and the only thing that can save it is the people voting, assuming the election isn't rigged (guffaw) for the Rs and the dotard.  The very fact that we can't trust the system to work the way it was meant to by our founders should be the giant red flag that shit has gone completely sideways and is on the edge of spiraling downward until we hit the fucking canyon floor like Wile E. Coyote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GW Hayduke

GW Hayduke 1953

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

This may be true, but that just shows how completely fucked this system is.  The government is fundamentally broken and the only thing that can save it is the people voting, assuming the election isn't rigged (guffaw) for the Rs and the dotard.  The very fact that we can't trust the system to work the way it was meant to by our founders should be the giant red flag that shit has gone completely sideways and is on the edge of spiraling downward until we hit the fucking canyon floor like Wile E. Coyote.

I disagree. It shows how one political party is broken, not the system. Hence, the solution is the 2020 election, to remove that broken political party from power in the senate and White House.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45695

Posted
Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

I disagree. It shows how one political party is broken, not the system. Hence, the solution is the 2020 election, to remove that broken political party from power in the senate and White House.

Ok, agree there, but that's a big ass risk we have to take I guess is my point.  It sucks that the election is the only thing that can save us because half of the government has chosen to ignore the constitution and can't be trusted to put country over party.  ETA: and truth over propaganda.

Edited by Biff Tannen
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GW Hayduke

GW Hayduke 1953

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Ok, agree there, but that's a big ass risk we have to take I guess is my point.  It sucks that the election is the only thing that can save us because half of the government has chosen to ignore the constitution and can't be trusted to put country over party.  ETA: and truth over propaganda.

It totally does suck

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
BrickHorn

BrickHorn 18256

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
2 hours ago, Red Five said:

I think they should make Hillary and Obama testify as well!

The GOP witness list includes Hillary, Obama, Peter Strzok, George Soros, Joe Whistleblower, Ed Benghazi, Pete Zagate, Bob Butteremails, and Dan Witchunt.

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites
USMCHorn

USMCHorn 1369

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

What’s Bolton’s game about hinting at explosive testimony. Is he trolling the Dems and not planning to ever testify?  Is he secretly preparing to give helpful testimony about trump? Or is he actually willing to testify against trump?

 

It’s a signal to Trump that he can make his life even more of a living hell than it already is if he thinks of treating him like he treated previous White House employees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89762

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

What’s Bolton’s game about hinting at explosive testimony. Is he trolling the Dems and not planning to ever testify?  Is he secretly preparing to give helpful testimony about trump? Or is he actually willing to testify against trump?

 

He’s an ideologue.  He wants everybody to know that he knows a lot of shit that happened, and that he didn’t approve.   It’s a bit of a “fuck you” to Trump to reveal that he knows things the committees may not know. It also gives the committee more of an incentive to go through the judicial channels so they can question him.   
I think he wants to testify, but by waiting for the courts to sign off, Trump and the DOJ can’t go after him.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89762

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

There is an inverse relationship between my ever growing certainty that Trump should be impeached and the likelihood of the Senate throwing him out on his ass, so I think it's time to wrap this baby up.

If they can come out with President Pence, I think the chances of impeachment are much higher than Donnie thinks.   Pence would give them what they want, and not trample all over their pet projects   

But that’s assuming Pence is clean.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doc Sam Beckett

Doc Sam Beckett 5797

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Pasken said:

What has been said by people about the April call?

 

It's been widely reported that Donald was having phone sex with your mom in the April call. 

 

4 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Don't know how legit this is, am heading out the door for an event so I'mma leave it here:

 

 

Sneaking out to see me isn't an event. On second thought, maybe it is wink wink

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

When trump supporters defend the Quid pro quo...do they know who Ukraine needs to defend themselves against these days?   I mean, had anybody told these people who Ukraine needs our help to combat?   Or is that the plot of red dawn 3?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Satchel

Satchel 6939

Posted
Posted
On November 9, 2019 at 3:12 PM, Nice Guy Eddie said:

What’s Bolton’s game about hinting at explosive testimony. Is he trolling the Dems and not planning to ever testify?  Is he secretly preparing to give helpful testimony about trump? Or is he actually willing to testify against trump?

 

The Dems should subpoena his notes and forget about him.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27694

Posted
Posted

I missed Friday's release, so as pennance here's today's release of testimony transcripts of Laura Cooper (Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense) and Catherine Croft and Christopher Anderson ( advisors to Ambassador Kurt Volker on Ukraine policy). As always, here's the notable excerpts:

Laura Cooper:

  • Providing critical security assistance to Ukraine serves U.S. national security in order to “deter Russian aggression elsewhere around the world.” (Page 16-17)
  • The Department of Defense (DOD) was “concerned” that delaying security assistance to Ukraine would weaken “a strategic partner” and make it “much more difficult for them to negotiate a peace on terms that are good for Ukraine.” (Page 95-96)
  • The Department of Defense, in coordination with the interagency, certified in May 2019 that Ukraine met the anti-corruption benchmarks set by the Pentagon to make it eligible to receive security assistance. (Page 24-25, 26-27, 34)
  • OMB informed the Department of Defense and other agencies during a meeting in July that the “funds were held without explanation,” and the Pentagon “did not get clarification.” (Page 44-45, 48-49, 49-50)
  • At a meeting on July 23, 2019, OMB told agencies that “the White House chief of staff has conveyed that the President has concerns about Ukraine and Ukraine security assistance,” and “immediately deputies began to raise concerns about how this could be done in a legal fashion.” (Page 50-52)
  • “All of the senior leaders of the U.S. national security departments and agencies were all unified in their—in their view that this assistance was essential.” (Page 58-59)
  • After President Trump froze the security assistance, the Department of Defense did not conduct an additional assessment of Ukraine’s anti-corruption efforts because “DOD participants affirmed that we believed sufficient progress has been made.” (Page 102-104)
  • During an inter-agency meeting on July 31, 2019, “there were many affirmative statements that the Congress has appropriated this, we need to obligate it,” and the Department of Defense explained the only legal options to withhold the funds were a presidential “rescission notice” to Congress or a “reprogramming action.” (Page 56-57, 87-88, 127)
  • In August 2019, the Department of Defense assessed that the President’s freeze on security assistance to Ukraine put at risk “well over $100 million.” (Page 88-90, 90)
  • On August 20, 2019, Ambassador Kurt Volker was engaged in “an effort to see if there was a statement that the government of Ukraine could make” in order to lift President Trump’s hold on the security assistance. (Page 68-69)
  • Based on her conversations with Ambassador Volker and Ambassador Bill Taylor, Ms. Cooper understood that Ukrainian officials were aware that the security assistance had been frozen as of August 2019—before that fact was publicly reported. (Page 72-73, 79-80)

Catherine Croft:

  • In May 2019, Ms. Croft discussed with Ambassador Bill Taylor her concerns that if “Biden was going to be a credible rival for” President Trump, “that might push him to change the policy on Ukraine.” (Page 46-47, 48-49)
  • Ms. Croft was “trepidatious” about accepting a position as a special assistant to Ambassador Kurt Volker because “it was possible that the Trump administration would choose to change its policy to suit domestic politics.” (Page 44-45)
  • In speaking with Ambassador Kurt Volker about Rudy Giuliani, Ms. Croft “thanked him for keeping me out of that mess.” (Page 70, 120)
  • Ukrainian officials raised concerns about the hold on security assistance “very early on.” (Page 97-98, 86-87, 100-101)
  • OMB placed a separate, earlier hold on Javelin missiles because Mick Mulvaney was concerned that “Russia would react negatively to the provision of Javelins to Ukraine,” despite the fact that “all of the other policy agencies were in support.” (Page 26-27, 51-52)
  • The hold was later lifted after NSC officials briefed Mr. Mulvaney that “the agencies were in agreement about the policy moving forward.” (Page 28-29)
  • When serving at the NSC, Ms. Croft “received multiple calls from lobbyist Robert Livingston who told me that Ambassador Yovanovitch should be fired.” (Page 14-15)
    • "During my time at the NSC, I received multiple calls from lobbyist Robert Livingston who told me that Ambassador Yovanovitch should be fired. He characterized Ambassador Yovanovitch as a, quote, “Obama holdover,” end quote, and associated with George Soros. It was not clear to me at the time, or now, at whose direction or at whose expense Mr. Livingston was seeking the removal of Ambassador Yovanovitch. I documented these calls and told my boss, Fiona Hill, and George Kent, who was in Kyiv at the time, I am not aware of any action that was taken in response."

Christopher Anderson:

  • In March 2019, the Prosecutor General of Ukraine “was trying to keep his job by making himself useful” to “Giuliani and others” by “trying to play into U.S. domestic politics and thereby win favors.” (Page 43-44)
  • In late spring 2019, Ambassador Volker said he “had been in touch” with Rudy Giuliani, “that he did not think this issue was going away,” and that “we’d have to do something to change the narrative.” (Page 48-49, 96-97)
  • After the U.S. delegation attended President Zelensky’s inauguration, Ambassador Sondland arranged a White House meeting within three days because he “had connections to the White House and was taken more seriously than the State Department bureaucracy.” (Page 53-54)
  • During a meeting on May 23, 2019, in the Oval Office, “the President said something to the effect of the Ukrainians tried to take me down.” (Page 57)
  • On June 13, 2019, National Security Advisor John Bolton warned “that Mr. Giuliani was a key voice with the President on Ukraine” and that “every time Ukraine is mentioned, Giuliani pops up and that the President was listening to Giuliani about Ukraine.” (Page 15-16, 101)
  • After a meeting at the Department of Energy on June 18, 2019, Mr. Anderson and Ambassador Taylor discussed that “it was important not to talk about—not to push for individual investigations.” (Page 103-104, 112-113)
  • Mr. Anderson had “the fear that if Giuliani’s narrative took hold, that the Ukrainian Government was an enemy of the President,” that narrative would undermine the U.S. government’s efforts to resolve the Russia-Ukraine conflict in the Donbas. (Page 47)
  • Ambassador Bill Taylor “repeatedly expressed his concern that Giuliani would make his job difficult” and requested assurances from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that “our policy for Ukraine would not change.” (Page 60)
  • After Russia seized Ukrainian military vessels in the Sea of Azov on November 25, 2018, the State Department quickly prepared a statement for the White House condemning the Russian escalation—but President Trump “put an embargo on any statements,” and “there was never a statement from the White House.” (Page 14, 30-32)
  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89762

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Captainant said:

When serving at the NSC, Ms. Croft “received multiple calls from lobbyist Robert Livingston who told me that Ambassador Yovanovitch should be fired.” (Page 14-15)

  • "During my time at the NSC, I received multiple calls from lobbyist Robert Livingston who told me that Ambassador Yovanovitch should be fired. He characterized Ambassador Yovanovitch as a, quote, “Obama holdover,” end quote, and associated with George Soros. It was not clear to me at the time, or now, at whose direction or at whose expense Mr. Livingston was seeking the removal of Ambassador Yovanovitch. I documented these calls and told my boss, Fiona Hill, and George Kent, who was in Kyiv at the time, I am not aware of any action that was taken in response."

Drain the swamp indeed.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Captainant said:

 

  • After Russia seized Ukrainian military vessels in the Sea of Azov on November 25, 2018, the State Department quickly prepared a statement for the White House condemning the Russian escalation—but President Trump “put an embargo on any statements,” and “there was never a statement from the White House.” (Page 14, 30-32)

Putin’s undercover lover.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...